Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Butane Corporation v. Kirby, 187 P.2d 325.

96 citing documents.

LeRoy v. Phillips 399 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1965
In Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc., , , , , we rejected the “range of vision” rule and Dennis, Coe, and Campbell, which had applied it.
State v. Willits 393 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1964
State v. Willits 393 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1964
.” In the case at bar, this is not an abstract instruction because it had direct relation to vital issues and evidence in the case confining the jury to the true issues and not diverting it to extraneous ones.
Peterson v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 391 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1964
McGuire v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 381 P.2d 588 Ariz. 1963
McGuire v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix 381 P.2d 588 Ariz. 1963
It must appear affirmatively that it did.”
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 378 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1963
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 378 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1963
we reversed on the giving of an instruction which permitted the jury to speculate as to the facts, saying: “ * * * There having been no testimony indicating defective brakes, the reading of this statute to the jury was misleading and might have induced them to believe that such state of facts in the o
McKeever v. Phoenix Jewish Community Center 374 P.2d 875 Ariz. 1962
McKeever v. Phoenix Jewish Community Center 374 P.2d 875 Ariz. 1962
Coyner Crop Dusters v. Marsh 367 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1962
Coyner Crop Dusters v. Marsh 367 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1962
this Court defined ‘wanton negligence’ as: “ * * * a reckless disregard of the rights of others or a reckless indifference to results.
Michie v. Calhoun 336 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1959
Michie v. Calhoun 336 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1959
Beliak v. Plants 326 P.2d 36 Ariz. 1958
Beliak v. Plants 326 P.2d 36 Ariz. 1958
Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Uptain 306 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1957
Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Uptain 306 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1957
The law in this jurisdiction is that no triable issue is created on allegations alone unless supported by evidence, , ; , ; , 215 P. 156 , and inferences which reasonably and logically flow from that evidence.
Bryan v. Southern Pacific Company 286 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1955
Bryan v. Southern Pacific Company 286 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1955
Conchin v. El Paso & S. W. R. Co., , 108 P. 260 , 28 L.R.A.,N.S., 88.
Eldredge v. Miller 277 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1954
Eldredge v. Miller 277 P.2d 239 Ariz. 1954
Southern Pac. Co. v. Baca 268 P.2d 963 Ariz. 1954
Southern Pac. Co. v. Baca 268 P.2d 963 Ariz. 1954
Stuart v. Castro 261 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1953
Stuart v. Castro 261 P.2d 371 Ariz. 1953
we collated and analyzed the authorities on the rule of “drive within the radius of your lights” and adopted the test as being what the ordinary prudent person would have done, in these words: “We now hold that the driver of an automobile at night is not required under all circumstances to see an
Scott v. Scott 252 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1953
Scott v. Scott 252 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1953
State v. Harold 246 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1952
State v. Harold 246 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1952
defined the term “wanton negligence” and numerous courts have defined the word “wanton” as it applies to negli.gence or reckless indifference.
Dunipace v. Martin 242 P.2d 543 Ariz. 1952
Morris v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co. 242 P.2d 279 Ariz. 1952
Morris v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co. 242 P.2d 279 Ariz. 1952
Dunipace v. Martin 242 P.2d 543 Ariz. 1952
See: , 216 P. 246 ; , ; , ; , ; , 245 P. 673 .
Anderson v. Morgan 241 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1952
Anderson v. Morgan 241 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1952
* * * ” , , , , held that exceeding the speed limit fixed by statute was not negligence per se and cited in support thereof McIver v. Allen, supra.
Motors Ins. Corp. v. Rhoton 236 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1951
Motors Ins. Corp. v. Rhoton 236 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1951
ed the Clark car to be bashed in, and then skidded a distance of 147 feet across the highway through an arroyo and up against 10-foot embankment where it came to rest, conclusively demonstrates that the accident was due to the sole, gross and wanton negligence of counterclaimants, , ; , .
City of Phoenix v. Mubarek Ali Khan 229 P.2d 949 Ariz. 1951
City of Phoenix v. Mubarek Ali Khan 229 P.2d 949 Ariz. 1951
* * *» , , in which the court instructed upon abstract *11 questions of law not within the pleadings, the court said: “An instruction not based upon the evidence in the case is misleading and calculated to induce the jury to suppose that such a state of facts, in the opinion of the court, is possible and ma
Krauth v. Billar 226 P.2d 1012 Ariz. 1951
Krauth v. Billar 226 P.2d 1012 Ariz. 1951
“* * * We believe that, generally speaking, where the statutes or the decisions of the courts require red lights as a warning of danger on any object in • the highway and such- lights are not pres *305 ent, it is a question for the jury to determine whether the driver at night should have seen the obstruction, notwithstanding the absence of red lights.” , , where the facts were similar to the case at hand, the defendant therein having collided with a truck on the highway without lights, the cour
Glenn v. Chenowth 226 P.2d 165 Ariz. 1951
Glenn v. Chenowth 226 P.2d 165 Ariz. 1951
Valley Transp. System v. Reinartz 197 P.2d 269 Ariz. 1948
Valley Transp. System v. Reinartz 197 P.2d 269 Ariz. 1948
Davis v. Boggs, 1921, , 199 P. 116 ; Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n v. Green, ; ; , .